Sunday, 28 November 2010

It came with all the usual nonsense about 'politically correct Grinches' and the 'War on Christmas':

"The War on Christmas is over, and likes of Winterval, Winter Lights and Luminous deserve to be in the dustbin of history."

Mr Pickles explained that the Christian festival has previously been ambushed by those intent on re-branding Christmas as a bland 'Winter festival', insisting that multi-cultural Britain can enjoy Christmas without abandoning its underlying Christian heritage in a misguided attempt to appease these politically correct 'Grinches'.

...you can't put things in the dustbin of history if they didn't really exist. Say it once, say it a million times, but Winterval wasn't a way of taking Christianity out of Christmas. Say it loud, say it long, say it dressed as a Christmas turkey with a giant Nativity scene stuffed up your jacksy; it doesn't matter...

It's depressing. No-one's trying to ban Christmas, for fear of offending minorities, or anything like that. Must we go through this every single year? Oh, we must. 'Christmas is banned' is as much of a Christmas tradition as granny falling asleep in front of Where Eagles Dare after scoffing the Milk Tray, it seems.

Thursday, 25 November 2010

The Spectator has been forced to pay substantial damages and publish the following apology over some false accusations made by Melanie Phillips on her blog:

Mohammad Sawalha: Apology

On 2 July 2008 we published an article entitled "Just look what came crawling out" which alleged that at a protest at the celebration in London of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, Mohammad Sawalha had referred to Jews in Britain as "evil/noxious". We now accept that Mr Sawalha made no such anti-Semitic statement and that the article was based on a mistranslation elsewhere of an earlier report. We and Melanie Phillips apologise for the error.

The background to the case, and why it took nearly two-and-a-half years to get to this point, are explained on Islamophobia Watch:

On 2 July 2008, the Spectator website published an article by Melanie Phillips entitled "Just Look What Came Crawling Out" ("the Article"). The Article falsely stated that Mohammad Sawalha had referred to Jews in Britain as "evil/noxious". Mohammad Sawalha has worked hard to build strong relations between communities of different faiths and no faith both in Britain and internationally, and was therefore shocked and outraged to read such a false and offensive accusation. It was immediately pointed out to the Spectator and Ms Phillips that this was a mistranslation of a transcript of an interview, which contained a typographical error, rendering the relevant phrase meaningless. It was also pointed out that the publisher of the original transcript of the interview had corrected the quotation already, making clear that Mr Sawalha had made no such anti-Semitic comment.

Rather than carrying out the reasonable and obvious course of action of amending the Article, Melanie Phillips instead chose to go on and publish a further article, entitled "Taking the Airbrush to Evil", repeating the highly insulting false allegation made in the Article and casting doubt on the suggestion that there had been a typographical error.

As neither the Spectator nor Ms Phillips agreed to deal with the matter amicably, despite requests by Mr Sawalha to do so, Mr Sawalha had no option but to seek vindication from the High Court.

An independent expert, jointly commissioned by Mr Sawalha, the Spectator and Ms Phillips, confirmed that the phrase in the original transcript of Mr Sawalha's interview was meaningless and that it could not be translated as referring to Jews as "evil/noxious". Nonetheless, the Spectator and Ms Phillips continued to defend Mr Sawalha's claim.

However, we are pleased to report that the Spectator and Ms Phillips have now agreed to remove both the offending Articles and have undertaken never to repeat the allegations complained of. They will pay Mr. Sawalha substantial compensation for the damage to his reputation as will as paying all his legal costs and publishing an Apology on the Spectator website...

So Phillips repeated an accusation made elsewhere (by Al Jazeera and Harry's Place) without checking it out for herself.

Al Jazeera corrected it instantly, and Harry's Place later, yet [Phillips] magisterially ignored requests for a simple correction until a trial was imminent, when she caved.

There's also a question over the placement of the apology on the Spectator's website. It hasn't been published on Phillips' blog, where the false claim was made - twice - or even on the homepage of the 'blogs' section. Instead, it's in Magazine>Essays.

I understand The Spectator has recently settled with [Mohammed Sawalha] after publishing a blog on its website by my friend Melanie Phillips which he regarded as libellous, and has again incurred costs said to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.

No criticism of Phillips for doing such a poor job as a journalist or for taking so long to apologise. No mention of the anti-Semitic remark Phillips attributed to Sawalha. Just a passing reference to something 'he regarded as libellous'. But then, that's what 'friends' are for...

On 26 November [2009], in referring to a magazine's claim that Cherie Blair had attended a shooting party which included Saif Gaddafi, we suggested this was hypocritical and had outraged the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing.

We accept that Mrs Blair did not attend the shooting party and has never met Mr Gaddafi. We apologise for any embarrassment caused.

Blair instructed lawyers in March about the article, which had the headline 'Outrage as Mandy goes on a country shoot with Gaddafi son (And, surprise, Cherie came too).'

And it's not the first time a newspaper apology has tried to shift blame to someone else. We were only 'referring to a magazine's claim' - don't blame us that we didn't check if it was correct before publishing it.

On 21 July 2010 we published an article about terrorism in the UK which included photographs of eight men with the caption: "Liquid bomb plot – 2006". We wish to make it clear that one of those pictured, Donald Stewart-Whyte, right, was acquitted of all terrorism-related charges. We apologise for any distress caused by the inclusion of his photograph in this context.

Friday, 19 November 2010

Last month, the Mail reported that a cafe in Stockport will have to remove its extractor fan 'because the smell of...frying bacon 'offends' Muslims'.

This wasn't true.

The fan has to be removed because the cafe owners (one of whom is Muslim) were refused planning permission for it. Moreover, the only person who officially complained about the smell during the planning application process was a member of the non-Muslim family who lived next door to the cafe.

Three people complained to the PCC about the story - versions of which also appeared in the Metro and Telegraph - but it has rejected the complaints. Apparently, despite the Mail saying the fan was being 'torn down' because 'the smell of frying bacon 'offends' Muslims' the PCC says:

readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission.

Here's the full PCC ruling :

The Commission made clear that, given the brief and limited nature of headlines, it considers them in the context of the article as a whole rather than as stand alone statements. In this instance, the Commission noted that the headlines reflected Mr Webb-Lee’s testimony that his Muslim friends would not visit because of the smell of bacon that came from the fan.

While it acknowledged the complainants’ argument that this was not the specific reason given by the council for the refusal of the application, it noted that this was indeed an aspect of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint which had led to the refusal of retrospective planning permission.

The Commission was satisfied that the body of the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail made clear the situation and that, when the headline was read in conjunction with the article, readers would not be misled as to the circumstances surrounding the refusal for planning permission. In regard to the Metro’s article, the Commission acknowledged that it had not included specific details of Mr Webb-Lee’s complaint.

However, given that his complaint had referred to his Muslim friends’ refusal to visit his house on account of the smell given off by the extractor fan, the Commission was satisfied that the sub-headline “A café boss has been ordered to change her extractor fan because the smell of frying bacon offends Muslims next door” was reflective of this complaint. The body of the article also made clear that the council’s decision was based on the smell being “unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity”.

While it considered that the newspaper could have included further details about the complaint, it did not, on balance, consider that the absence of such details were misleading in such a way as to warrant correction under the terms of the Code. It could not, therefore, establish a breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code.

Under the terms of Clause 12 (Discrimination) newspapers must avoid making prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s religion. However, the clause does not cover generalised remarks about groups of people. Given that the complainants considered the article to discriminate against Muslim people in general, the Commission could not establish a breach of Clause 12 of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

(Hat-tip to Dave, one of the complainants)

UPDATE: Roy Greenslade has written an excellent post which points out that the vast majority of the 544 comments that appeared on the Mail's article were written by people who had clearly been 'misled' - despite the PCC saying that 'would not' happen. He writes:

The articles were clearly prejudicial because the headlines and intros were misleading. The end result was to feed anti-Muslim bigotry.

To build a story based on one man's unsupported statement when it involves the delicate matter of religious intolerance shows a reckless disregard for the pubic interest and social cohesion.

In the PCC's opinion, "the body of the articles" in the Mail and Telegraph made the situation "clear."

Come off it! The papers did not run this story because it involved the removal of an extractor fan. They ran it because it fitted their own anti-Muslim agendas.

One common criticism of the PCC is that it has no power to fine newspapers for serious or repeated breaches of the Code of Conduct, but Gore says that this “massively underestimates” the impact of the PCC’s adjudications on newspapers and editors.

Because we would hate to 'massively underestimate' the power of the PCC, we must assume that the Star has been ever-so careful to make sure the same 'lack of care' has not been present in other front page stories since that adjudication.

Any similarity to the latest edition of new! magazine which, like the Star, is owned by Richard Desmond, is purely coincidental:

(As if that wasn't enough cross-promotion, one new! columnist was recently explaining how 'his friend' Richard Desmond would do 'fantastic things' at Channel Five.)

Essentially, today's Star is simply an advert for today's new!. The front page article even ends with the words:

To read the full story, buy new! magazine out now.

But the 'full story' - if it can even be called that - is already in the Star. Is reality TV 'star' Amy Childs really Peter Andre's 'new love', as claimed on the front page and in Gemma Wheatley's article?

Peter, 37, told new! magazine: “Amy has a massive following and has the potential to be a huge star. I’m meeting her in a couple of weeks.”

So his 'new love' is someone he hasn't even met? And previously he has said:

I do know that Amy is only 20 years old and therefore a little bit young for me! I’m very flattered but I think dating someone 17 years younger than me might be a bit weird.

So if she isn't his 'new love', how can Jordan be in a 'fury' about it? According to this tweet, she isn't.

It appears, then, that none of the Star's front page headline is accurate. Again.

And yet there are still cynics out there who 'massively underestimate' the impact of PCC adjudications...

Monday, 15 November 2010

On Friday, a press release from Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust reported on research from consultant orthopaedic surgeon Professor Nicholas Clarke and Dr Justin Davies, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist. After checking over 200 children in Southampton for bone problems, Clarke and Davies found that more than one-fifth showed signs of rickets.

CVG point out that when the Sun got hold of the press release, their 'Staff Reporter' produced an article that looked like this:But by Saturday, in the hands of Health and Science Editor Emma Morton, the story changed to this:

Could it be that the first story has been hastily edited and re-printed in a desperate attempt to mould it to The Sun's anti-games news agenda?

We're not cynical enough to suggest so. It's just... aside from its screaming headline, the second story only mentions video games once, in its opening paragraph. The rest is pretty much a carbon copy of the original report. Even The Sun's own doctor, Carol Cooper, doesn't mention games in her analysis.

Nor indeed does the Mail, which always likes to blame video games for something.

As Ingham points out, Clarke is quoted as saying that this increase in rickets is:

"...a completely new occurrence that has evolved over the last 12 to 24 months."

Yet kids have been playing video games for rather longer than that. And there's simply no mention of video games in Southampton Hospital's press release, which makes clear:

...the disease is now making a comeback around the world due to low vitamin D levels caused predominantly by lack of exposure to sunlight and also poor diet.

It also says absolutely nothing about whether 'game addict kids' are more likely to suffer with rickets.

Current advice states that pregnant women should avoid ibuprofen and aspirin during pregnancy, although there is no evidence that occasional use of paracetamol is harmful. The results of this study are unlikely to change those recommendations, but women should seek advice from their GP or midwife before taken any medications during their pregnancy.

And they should not seek guidance from stories in the media. Yet articles about miracle cures or health scares have become a staple. Conflicting advice about the dangers or benefits of aspirin, for example, are common, as is poor reporting about medicine, science and research.

And there are plenty of other examples. Here's another one from the Mail:

How remembering to eat your celery could halt memory loss

A taste for celery is one that many people never acquire, but scientists have just given them a reason to eat it.They have discovered that a chemical found in high concentrations in celery – and in peppers – could halt memory loss as we get older.

The U.S. researchers say the plant compound luteolin reduces inflammation in the brain, which is associated with ageing and its related memory problems, by halting the release of molecules that cause the inflammation.

Only after that does the Mail explain the research was conducted on mice.

Although this is interesting basic research that may give insight into at least one of the processes involved as the brain ages, its direct relevance to humans is limited.

The mice were given a relatively high supplement of pure luteolin. There is not sufficient evidence to suggest that normal dietary consumption of luteolin–rich vegetables such as celery can improve memory in humans.

And:

The Daily Mail’s report has exaggerated the relevance of this study to humans and the effect that eating celery might have on human memory.

This is good research within its own right, and well documented by the researchers in their research paper. However, this is still early-stage research in animals. As there was no long-term follow-up of the animals and its effects on other types of memory, the findings have little immediate relevance to the health of people with dementia. The Daily Express’s front-page report is not justified by this research...

The newspapers have over-interpreted the relevance of these findings to humans.

A few days before that, both the Express and Mail reported on the latest research about the benefits of tea.

The review was reported in both the Daily Mail and Daily Express, whose reporting generally did not reflect the uncertainty of the study’s conclusions. For example, the Mail reported that three cups of tea a day can prevent cardiac problems, while the Express said drinking tea two or three times a day could reduce risk of the disease by 11%. These claims appear to be based on a 2001 analysis, which the reviewers considered to be flawed. The review actually suggests that this earlier research had several problems that undermine the certainty of the results.

Both newspapers also claim that drinking two cups of tea will provide as many antioxidants as eating five portions of vegetables. Although tea does contain antioxidants, the suggestion that it can be a substitute for the numerous health benefits of fruit and vegetables is not supported by this research.

On 18 October, the Express was leading on the 'secret' to a long, healthy life.

And what was this 'secret' that no-one could possibly have ever known about before the Express revealed it on their front page?

...research showed that the answer was a widely varied diet that might include oily fish, porridge oats and blueberries.

Hardly a surprise.

Next they'll be saying that drinking moderately, not smoking, doing exercise, watching your weight and eating less red meat is good for you.

This story is based on a small study which looked at the brains of 19 new mums, using scans to understand how they changed between two weeks and four months after having a baby. It found that the volume of the certain parts of the brain increased in this period, and that this increase seemed to be greater among women who used more positive words to describe their baby.

Contrary to what is implied by the newspaper, the study did not assess the women’s intelligence, and it is not possible to say whether the changes in brain volume led to any changes in intelligence or behaviour. Also, the study did not examine any women without children, so we cannot say whether the effect only occurs after birth or if it occurs in other situations where new skills must be learnt.

Watching violent video games, films and TV shows really can make children more aggressive, scientists believe.

DOES this study say that?

The small study looked at brain activity and automatic nervous response (skin sweating) in boys aged 14 to 17 years who were watching short video clips of low-to-moderate levels of aggressive behaviour. The researchers found that sweating and brain response to moderate aggression reduced over time, but response to milder scenes did not change as much. Despite what has been implied by the media, this study did not look at the boys’ behaviour.

Crucially, although this study may suggest some short-term changes in the brain activity of teenage boys watching aggressive material, it cannot tell us if it would actually influence their actions.

This news story is a based on a small study in 16 elderly people...conducted over an extremely short time span. Its findings suggest that adults who eat a diet high in nitrates may experience an increased blood flow to certain areas of the brain within a short interval, compared with eating a diet low in nitrates.

However, this does not mean that beetroot juice, or any other food high in nitrates, can help prevent dementia or even improve mental function...

The researchers only measured blood flow in parts of the brain and did not measure the participants’ cognitive abilities. As such, it is not known whether a high nitrate diet does benefit people in this way.

...the way this study has been promoted, and subsequently reported, has been been misleading and inaccurate. In short, this was a study about dieting and weight loss, and not about breast cancer at all. And it can’t be used to conclude anything about breast cancer risk, nor about how women should or shouldn’t diet.

Cancer Research UK have also been at the forefront in challenging claims about cancer being a new, man-made disease.

Her article does include several passages very similar to the original press release. For example, press release:

...it was not until the 17th century that they found descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers and the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours have only occurred in the past 200 years, such as scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775, nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761 and Hodgkin’s disease in 1832.

Mail:

The 17th century provides the first descriptions of operations for breast and other cancers. And the first reports in scientific literature of distinctive tumours only occurred in the past 200 years or so, including scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps in 1775 and nasal cancer in snuff users in 1761.

And, press release:

Evidence of cancer in animal fossils, non-human primates and early humans is scarce – a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossils...

Mail:

Fossil evidence of cancer is also sparse, with scientific literature providing a few dozen, mostly disputed, examples in animal fossil...

We were concerned to see headlines in the media today claiming that scientists say cancer is ‘purely man-made’. This is not only scientifically incorrect, but misleading to the public and cancer patients.

Our lifestyles have a great impact on our chances of developing cancer – as we’ve said many times. But the evidence that’s being used to justify these latest headlines doesn’t in any way support the assertion that cancer is modern or man-made.

Coghlan adds:

A quote from [Rosalie] David put out by the University of Manchester saying "There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer. So it has to be a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle" caused particular consternation.

What's so wrong with that?

There are dozens of natural causes of cancer, including ultraviolet light from the sun, natural radiation from radionuclides such as radon in rocks, and infection by viruses that trigger cancer, such as the human papilloma virus, which causes cervical cancer and hepatitis viruses that can cause liver cancer. Likewise, soot and smoke from fire contain a multitude of carcinogens, as do fungal aflatoxins deposited on peanuts. "And that's to say nothing of cancers caused by genetic inheritance," says Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK.

Claims that cancer is ‘purely man-made’, based on an interpretation of a relatively small number of ancient remains, are confusing and misleading, and certainly don’t reflect the huge amount of scientific evidence piling up about the true causes of this devastating disease.

Sadly, so much science reporting seems to be 'confusing and misleading' because eye-catching headlines take precedence over accuracy.

BBC1 viewers were left shocked last night when a four-letter-word rant was accidentally broadcast during Claudia Winkleman's live Film 2010 show.

Sun:

Embarrassed host Claudia Winkleman was describing Jamie Lee Curtis's new rom-com You Again as "contrived and awful" when the four-letter outburst was heard over the top.

Mail:

Claudia, who also hosts Strictly Come Dancing's live results show, as well as spin off It Takes Two, had just described Jamie Lee Curtis's new rom-com You Again as 'contrived and awful' when the outburst was suddenly heard over the top.

Sun:

A woman - thought to be backstage in the studio - was heard saying: "... are you scared of his fans? And I'm like, No! I couldn't give a f*** about a load of... "

Winkleman, 38, apologised after the technical blunder.

Mail:

A woman with a Geordie accent - thought to be backstage - was heard saying: "...Oh, are you scared of his fans? And it's like, No! I couldn't give a f*** about a load of... "

Winkleman, 38, who co-hosts the show with film critic Danny Leigh, apologised after the technical blunder.

It's hard to work out exactly how someone saying one f-word makes it a 'foul-mouthed rant'.

And were viewers really left shocked and stunned? Neither article quotes a single messageboard comment from an angry viewer. Even the couple of mentions of the incident on the BBC Points of View messageboards, a favourite source for Mail hacks, contain very little 'shock'.

The Mail did manage to rustle up one critical comment for a 'story' they ran a few days ago about BBC weatherman Tomasz Schafernaker:

The forecaster dispensed of the usual smart suit, shirt and tie for the more casual look of a dark blue V-neck jumper and blue jeans during the broadcast on BBC1.

If this had been one of the usual weather forecasts the lack of a suit and tie may just have been worth mentioning. But it wasn't. As a comment by Peter Tarrega pointed out:

This was from 'Weather for the Week Ahead' during 'Country Tracks' yesterday. Weather presenters always dress down for itas it's not a news programme and the main presenters of the programme are normally in jeans and wellies themselves as they march around the countryside. It's not as if he presented the weather on the 10 o'clock news in a T-shirt.

It's hard to believe that the Mail didn't know that this wasn't a main weather bulletin, even though they imply it was. But if they had revealed that fact, the thinness of the story would have been even more evident than it already is.

Yet according to the Mail - who wouldn't dream of overplaying this non-event - Schafernaker's appearance on 7 November:

caused a storm

and

provoked upset

Really? With who?

Viewer Stephen Jones, 35, from Bournemouth, Dorset, said he was stunned by the weatherman's casual appearance yesterday.

He said: 'I thought I had tuned into Newsround or Blue Peter for a minute when I saw the main presenter wearing jeans and a jumper.

'I've heard of having dress-down days before but I didn't think the BBC went in for that.

'When you are presenting to the nation, especially on the BBC, surely you should look as professional as possible, not like someone who's just come in from off the street.

'I've read that Tomasz might be moving to radio in the near future - maybe he is just preparing himself for a role on radio.'

Around 30 people living nearby have written to the council and started a petition to oppose the application by Sunnyfields, which already runs two nurseries in the borough.

Mum-of-two Natalie Rooney, aged 37, said: “We think there will be traffic problems because of all the parents dropping off and picking up their children.

“We think there will be noise problems because the children will be playing outdoors."

Fair enough. But then...oh dear:

"We are also worried that paedophiles will be attracted to the area to be close to the nursery.

"The fact is it will be a 52 children nursery with strangers dropping off and picking up their children, and this is a closeknit community, and the upshot of that is we do not know who will be sitting outside in their car."

Hmm. But at least the paper would play down such nonsensical fears. Wouldn't it?

Monday, 8 November 2010

On 4 November, Express Newspapers were in court again, this time to say sorry to former MP Stephen Hesford:

In Court yesterday, we apologised to Stephen Hesford former MP for West Wirral.

On 17 October 2009, we published an article entitled “MP who took moral stance “was a sex pest”. The article reported on proceedings before the Employment Tribunal in Liverpool the day before brought against Mr Hesford by a former employee for sexual discrimination.

The article also stated that a claim for sexual harassment had been made but wrongly implied that Mr Hesford was being accused of personally having sexually harassed his former employee and as such was a hypocrite having resigned a month earlier as a matter of principle as a parliamentary aide to the Attorney General.

We accepted that there has been no suggestion of any sexual misbehaviour by Mr Hesford and that the proceedings against him were in his capacity as employer.

And in this case, 'a few' is right. Despite the Express using emotive terms such as 'angry mob' and 'another demonstration raged outside' it appears only three people were involved and, apart from shouting, all they did was wave around some bits of A4 paper with homemade slogans printed out in black and red capital letters.

By contrast, the demonstrations of the 'angry mob' called the English Defence League don't get mentioned on the front page of the Express. Their demos are bigger, involve people who hide their identity and usually end with people being arrested. Apparently, the Express isn't so concerned about that.

The Express sees Muslims as a homogeneous mass that is in complete agreement with the ramshackle fanatics at its fringes. The headline is a dog-whistle signal for the idea that "Muslims" disapprove of "us British"...

That there are Muslim extremists who say such things is beyond a doubt. However, the Express' decision to make this the key focus of the story, along with the language used in the headline, is an attempt to imply that these shouts are in some way an expression of what every Muslims thinks about the British.

The Express claimed that a ten-year-old swimmer had been 'banned from wearing googles because of health and safety'.

Usually these health and safety stories are about people being forced to wear goggles. But this one isn't true either - the advice (not ban) is that kids who swim should get used to eye contact with water. Health and safety had nothing to do with it.